You have probably read Page 37 of the May Present Truth, giving the “case of a prominent brother” maligned by “magnified slander”. I am that brother there referred to; but the account only remotely and vaguely de­scribes the disgrace, so I am enclosing copies of some correspondence to acquaint you with the facts. My prayer for you is that you will read this with that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality” (Jas, 3:17).

Since shortly after Brother Johnson's death an organized “whispering” campaign of slander has been systematically carried on against me, none of it containing one honest statement – much the same as was done against Brother Johnson after Brother Russell's death. Slander and lying are sins common to many of the Great Company (See Vol. E‑10, pp, 225 and 264, bottom); although I am very happy to observe, too, that some in our Group and in other Groups appear not to be sullied by these Azazelian “dis”graces. In addition to the slander discussed in the enclosed, other false­hoods have been circu­lated – “Brother Hoefle is out of harmony with the Lord's arrange­ments”; and “He was in strong dis­agreement with Brother Johnson before his death”. A little reflection by you should easily disprove this latter without any ex­planation from me; but I remind you of the following facts: Brother Johnson gave me a prominent place on the Philadelphia Convention Program the month be­fore he died; he asked me to convey the Aaronic Benediction to the Conven­tion in his stead (although some of the slandering Great Company were there and con­veniently available). The next morning, while lying in his bed, he told me he was sorry he did not hear my discourse; said he was simply too weak to come to the Tabernacle. When one of the Bible House attendants kept calling to me to terminate my visit because I was exhausting Brother Johnson, he clung to my hand and made the statement, “We don't grow weary of the company of those we love, do we?” And those were among the last words he ever spoke to me!

Furthermore, on numerous occasions in the months before his death he in­sisted that Brother Hoefle should conduct his funeral if he should happen to die (although I knew nothing of this until after he had died); and I suggest you read again the funeral discourse I gave for him to determine for yourself if my words there carry the expressions of a true friend. Also, I was made the Executor for the wills of both Brother and Sister Johnson; and both wills speci­fically stated that I was to serve without posting bond. And Brother and Sis­ter Johnson both, many times during our intimate visits together, exacted from me the promise that I would conduct her funeral – although illness prevented me from keeping that promise, as Brother Jolly himself so well knows, because I re­quested him personally to substitute for me. However, in case the foregoing is not enough, I quote below a paragraph from Brother Johnson's letter to me, dated October 31, 1947:

“This explanation is given to you in confidence, with the distinct under­standing that you will not give it to others. My confidence in your integrity and loyalty to the Lord's word has moved me to give you what I would not even give the Church Class now..... So I am depending on you to keep a secret. I do many things for you, my dear Brother, be­cause of your faithfulness to the Truth, that I have not done for others.” I sincerely hope you have not received and been influenced by any of this slander. But, if you have, then I remind you that you were rubbing elbows with spiritual lepers; and, if you did not heed your Scriptural obligation in such matters, then some of that leprosy passed over to you – and it is still there, whether you realize it or not.

In his letter of March 24, Brother Jolly proclaimed his “full harmony with Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908”; and in his letter of May 17 he com­pletely rejects every principle of that article. Thus, it is proper to note that his “full harmony” was so “full” that he did not even mention that article in his “Blessing God and Cursing Men” of May 1 – although he had been specifically requested to use it. So we now take his article entitled “Blessing God and Curs­ing Men”, and compare it with another article in the April 1, 1920 Watch Tower entitled “Let Us Dwell in Peace”, by That Evil Servant. Brother Johnson makes a true analysis of the latter in Vol. E‑6, pages 136‑164 (Especially note page 162). Could Brother Jolly's article be a “Soulmate” (another Wooden Horse) of the Apr. 1920 article?

It does seem tragic, indeed, that the unsus­pecting and well‑intentioned Youthful Wor­thies in the LHMM are now being corrupted by some uncleansed Levites in our midst (aided by a few leprous Youthful Worthies) – just as has been done in all the sects of Little Babylon before Brother Johnson died. And I call upon you to arouse yourselves “while it is yet today” to the leprosy in our Group and to cleanse yourselves of it, if the contagion is with you; to help others cleanse themselves of it (in accordance with Brother Russell's article of Nov. 15, 1908), and to abide in the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth in keeping with our blessed privileges as the Epiphany Elect!

Please be assured I am still your Brother and I pray for you and all God's people daily – in accordance with the vows I have publicly expressed before you; and the prayer I send you with this letter is that you may be found “blame­less and harmless, children of God without reproach”. As always, I stand ready to help you in any way I can; and I hope for your prayers that I may continue faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.

I feel that I owe you a letter in view of certain charges made at the Question meeting at Winter Park, in which you and I were involved, I am not sure what it was all about, as apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed, hence, the charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.

It appears that the charges against me were that I am circulating re­ports against you (1) as soliciting investments from widows and (2) as being dishonest in your business dealings and (3) that I am not in harmony with Brother Russell's teachings as given in his article on Evil Speaking in Z 1908, Pp‑ 348‑351.

Of course, I could not deny charge (3) which was then for the first time made against me publicly in my presence (contrary to Matt. 16:15), for it was necessary for me first to read the article in questions which I have now done and I am glad to say I am in full harmony with it. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Winter Park Ecclesia for their information, as my answer to this charge, seeing I was not able to give a reply at the time without first read­ing the article in question.

As to the first two charges, I denied them before the brethren assembled at Winter Park, for I have not spread any such reports. I know of one widow for whom you invested money at her request – in fact when some years ago she asked me for advice, I recommended you to her. I understand that she has no complaints against you. I do not know that you ever solicited investments from widows nor that you have ever been dishonest in your business dealings. I gladly make this statement in your behalf.

I am not clear as to just what the charge was against Brother Gavin, but it had to do with a conversation between him and Brother Eschrich and supposedly involved me. Bro. Gavin stated three times that my name was not mentioned, but his word was doubted by the one making the charges.

The following day the Lord blessed those who attended with rich refresh­ing from His holy Word. I wish you could have been present, but understand that you had other duties, which required your presence in Michigan. With con­tinued best wishes for you in the Lord, I remain,

In your letter of March 24 you say “apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed”; but I assure you that I have not ignored Matthew 18 toward you or any one else.

When Brother Gavin was here in Detroit last fall he told me Brother Eschrich had given him, on last September 12 in Springfield, Mass., a slanderous statement about me, which Brother Eschrich said he had received from Brother Jolly. I gave Brother Gavin a very clear and detailed explanation of the matter, which he veri­fied in every detail the next day from Sister ……. herself, who was in Detroit at the time. Brother Gavin, convinced by his own knowledge who the liar was, then told me he had “surmised there was some malice on the part of Brother Jolly” in tell­ing Brother Eschrich what he had told him. (Note I have quoted Brother Gavin's ex­act words.)

Although it seemed certain Brother Gavin was telling me the truth then, I realized that did not in itself prove it to be the truth; and I did not care to appear ridi­culous by coming to you with third‑hand gossip. Rather, I decided to “do everything decently and in order” – step by step. – so I wrote to Brother Eschrich (copy of my letter of October 30 enclosed), receiving two evasive answers from him. Finally, I wrote him on November 18, asking for a clear, clean answer, to which he never re­plied. So when he approached me with “buttered” words just before the two o'clock meeting at Jacksonville last February 27, I told him the first consideration should be my last letter to him; at which he offered the imbecilic suggestions “Let's just drop its Brother”. At My – “Nonsense! this thing has been peddled from Massachu­setts to Texas, and from Minnesota to Florida”, he then offered me his “solemn word” that he had repeated it to no one except his wife, and – “if she has circulated it, I can't help that. You know how women are; they will gossip.” Thereupon I called to Brother Gavin, who stated most emphatically and in minute detail that – “You told me that on September 12 in Springfield, and you said Brother Jolly had told it to you.” Brother Eschrich just turned white; but did not dispute one word Brother Gavin had said. When I asked him if Brother Jolly had told him that, he began to vacil­late; so I asked for a clear Yes or No. He refused to answer; then grabbed the con­venient alibi that the meeting was already ten minutes late, and walked away from me.

Here in Detroit we can see no honest reason for innocent parties hiding behind the “Fifth Amendment”; and we think they exude a pretty putrid smell when they do so. Can you offer the slightest excuse why he could not have answered No if No had been the simple truth? In Sister …….’s own words – “I never said or meant to imply that you defrauded me, or attempted to do so”. If Sister ……. is telling the truth (and both of you admit that she is), it then comes down to this: Did Brother Esch­rich concoct that slanderous lie so his gossiping wife could broadcast it; or did you or some one else tell it to him? Also, had he been innocent – and well‑inten­tioned – he most certainly would have gone to you immediately at Jacksonville in an effort to clear you and himself, and have the matter properly adjusted. Did he come to you about it then? If so, what conclusion did you reach?

I should record here, too, that in that two‑o'clock Testimony Meeting Brother Eschrich had the colossal gall to stand up – as did the breastbeating Pharisees of old – and declare – “I have nothing but love in my heart for all of you”, I could not but reflect then that his “love” for me was so touching that he was willing to incite to murderous defamation, then stand by and “hold the clothes” of them who cast the stones; and I have been pondering ever since if this “loving” brother is really such a gross hypocrite, or if he is merely non compos mentis!

From the way I am expressing myself herein, it should be very clear to you by now, Brother Jolly, that I am in no mood for oily alibis. In accord­ance with Matt. 18, I went to Brother Eschrich, and he “refused to hear me”. I went to him also with Brother Gavin, and he refused to hear us. So I think I am now quite in order to take the third step –summon him before the General Church – ; so I ask that you please let me know if he and Brother Gavin will be at Muskegon May 28‑30. If not, when and where do you expect to have them both in attendance?

Also, I am now in position to follow out Matt. 18 with regard to you, so I wish you would please give me a clear answer to the following questions:

1. Did you discuss that matter with Sister ……. during the past year or so? If so, please state what prompted the discussion, and give me a resumé.

2. Did you discuss it with Brother Eschrich about the time of the last Philadelphia Convention – or any other time? If so, please state what prompted the discussion, and give me a resumé.

3. Have you discussed it with any one else? If so, please give details,

4. Did you discuss with Brother Eschrich the Jacksonville item described above? If so, please give a resumé, and what conclusions you reached.

5. Did you discuss me with Sister Pearson at any time? If so, please state why, and give a resumé.

6. How much evil speaking did you receive about me from Sister Scott of Detroit, and what counsel did you give her about it?

7. Did you say at Winter Park during March 15‑17 that I had asked you to take charge of Brother Johnson's funeral in my place?

In the last paragraph of your letter of March 24 you say – “Brother Gavin stated three times that my name was not mentioned”. If you speak the truth, and if I understand you correctly, you will readily realize from the foregoing that Brother Gavin lied three times that day in Winter Park – just as did another, in a spell of weakness, some nineteen centuries ago, when the self‑admittedly “cleansed” leaders (type of the Great Company in the end of this Age) were scheming for Jesus' blood (Matt. 27:25). In this connection, last Fall at Mount Dora Brother Gavin offered – in the presence of witnesses – to write Brother Eschrich that he had proven without doubt that what Brother Eschrich had heard and passed on to him was simply nothing but slander. Now I do indeed regret my generosity there, because I told Brother Gavin then that I wished to spare him any inconvenience or embarrass­ment that I could – that I was grateful to him for recognizing his Scriptural duty in advising me of the slander – that I had written Brother Eschrich and was then waiting for his answer. Of course, I shall now follow Matt. 18 with respect to Brother Gavin on whatever discrepancies seem to have arisen since then.

He who steals my purse steals trash;

But he who filches my good name

Takes that which does not enriches him,

And makes me poor indeed.

My prayer for you and all involved herein is that you may eventually be able to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and that your hands may be found free from the blood of all men.

It has come to my attention that you have been party to a vicious rumor to the effect that I have defrauded a Truth sister, a widow, in the handling of $l,000 for her; that I did not even give her a receipt for the moneys.

I sincerely hope you are not guilty of such a gross violation of Christian principle, because it seems unthinkable you would be so shal­low in your Scriptural understanding of such a serious matter – “Re­ceive not an accusation against an elder except by two or three witness­es”. If such a rumor came to you, your solemn Scriptural obligation – as fellow Pilgrim and as a leader and teacher in the Household of Faith – would be to come to me first of all to learn whether or not it be true; just as I am coming to you first of all, without discussing with any one else what is only hearsay and may be a gross injustice to you. You surely are familiar with the sound and sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on such matters (see manna comments for Jan. 7, March 30, July 14, Sept. 10, Dec. 1), so I need say no more on the ethical and brotherly course you are obligated to follow.

Will you please let me know immediately if you are guilty as stated above. If so, then I ask you to tell me the name of your informant, and the exact content of what you were told.

In view of paragraph 2 sentence 2, of your letter of May 22, 1954, and other considerations, I can see nothing of benefit to you or others that would be accomplished by my writing to you further at this time.

Your letter of May 17 makes no mention that you are sending a copy to the Winter Park Ecclesia, so I shall send them one from here. Since you now take refuge behind my letter of May 22, 1954, it would seem you must have completely forgotten that letter when writing me as you did on March 24, 1955.

However, in your letter of March 24 you state you are “in full harmony” with Brother Russell's article in Z Nov. 15, 1908, 348‑52. Did you mean that, or didn't you? Yours of May 17 certainly is not in harmony with your confession of March 24, although I realize you may not have discerned clearly the connection between that ar­ticle and my letter of April 1, so I am stating a few of my questions again:

1. Who gave the slander to you about Sister ……. and me?

2, Did you repeat it to Brother Eschrich, or any one else?

Your Scriptural obligation in this matter is clear enough; and I again call upon you to meet it in accordance with your own confession of “full harmony” with Brother Russell's article. I mention, too, that you yourself invited the Winter Park Ecclesia into this correspondence (I was not at Winter Park on March 15‑17); so your refusal now to offer a defense of yourself leaves them – and any others who may read these letters – free to form their own conclusions about the merits of your position.

Your attempt of March 24 to plead Matthew 18 is simply so much nonsense. In your position, you should welcome the opportunity to make a public defense of your character or your ministry, at any reasonable time or in any place, if – YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! My own position is that any of the brethren may question my course in life, my attitude toward the Truth, or my treatment of any of the Lord's people at any reasonable time or in any place, because – I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! I shall be happy to have you publish this statement in the Present Truth; and I suggest you publish the same statement in the Present Truth for yourself, too. Of course, in your refusal to respond to me when I come to you, as I did in my letter of April l, you self‑evidently show your contempt for Matthew 18 – the same Scripture to which you took refuge when it seemed to suit your convenience.

Furthermore, your flimsy evasion of May 17 is untenable, and can mean only one of two things: Either you are disgustingly guilty and fear the truth; or you are tragically shallow and weak in your handling of this situation, I say "shallow and weak" because the merest reflection should make unmistakably evident this con­clusion: If you are not guilty, then a simple negation would answer the questions I asked you; and the guilt would then be shifted to me if you are innocent and I disbelieved you. Having opened up our correspondence again of your own free will – without any invitation from me – you now show pathetically poor face by appeal­ing to my year‑old letter as an excuse to close up what you yourself reopened on March 24, 1955. Surely, “Their foolishness shall be very plain to all.” (2 Tim. 3:9 - Dia.)

It has just been reported to me that Brother Gavin flatly denied before you all this week that he ever said he had been told by Brother Eschrich that Brother Jolly had told him (Bro. Eschrich) a tale to the effect that I was imposing upon Truth widows, that I had accepted $1,000 from one, not even giving her a receipt for it.

If I am properly informed, this attitude on the part of Brother Gavin is almost unbelievable. When he was here in Detroit last fall, he specifically told me, in so many words, that Brother Eschrich had told him in Springfield, Mass., on last September 12 that he (Bro. Eschrich) had received this report from Brother Jolly – and, after some very clear explanation on my part (which explanation was verified the next day by the Sister in question when Brother Gavin asked her about it), Brother Gavin ventured his own comment, that he had “surmised there was some mal­ice” on the part of Brother Jolly in telling Brother Eschrich what he had told him.

In accordance with Scriptural require­ment, I wrote Brother Eschrich about it last fall, receiving two evasive answers to my urgent letters. On November 18 I wrote him again, pointing out his evasion, and asked him for a clear clean answer. I never received an answer to that letter.

At the Jacksonville Convention on February 27, 1955 Brother Eschrich denied repeating the slander to any one but his wife, and – “if she's circulated it, I can't help that. You know how women are; they will gos­sip.” Thereupon I called to Brother Gavin, who said most emphatically and clearly that “You told me that on September 12 in Springfield, Mass., and you said Brother Jolly had told it to you.” When asked for a specific “Yes” or “No” whether Brother Jolly had told him, he refused to answer.

In the days following Sunday, February 27 the matter was discussed frequently and at length with Brother Gavin while he was a guest in our home at Mount Dora from February 27 to March 16; and it was clearly under­stood Brother Jolly was to be questioned about it during his visit with you March 15 and 16. Never once was there any intimation by Brother Gavin that he disagreed in any slightest details about what the discussion had been between him and Brother Eschrich; so that his denial now – at this Passover Season – is nothing less than a Judas kiss. “Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted – and who did eat my bread – hath lifted up the heel against me.” (Psa. 41:9)

I am sorry I must write you such a letter. I am doubly sorry that Brother Jolly, Brother Gavin and Brother Eschrich would sink so low but I say – as did our Beloved Lord – “Weep not for me”; weep rather for them, because it will surely be required at their hands by extreme Fit‑Man experiences. And I admonish you all to “keep yourselves in the love of God”, and do not allow this shameful exhibition of “brotherly love” by those in high places to cause any of you to “fall from your steadfastness.”

Satan at this season of the year certainly tries his best to make trouble.

Sister Gavin received a copy of a letter that Brother Hoefle ad­dressed to you re­garding some things regarding myself. At first I thought, will just forgot it, but the more I thought it over I said I will say a few words. When I came to Fla. to Mount Dora it was agreed that anything that might be said about certain things and persons was to be confidential hence one of my reasons for writing you. Bro. Hoefle has not written to me and I believe that he knows that he should have done so before writing your class.

Now Dear Friends without bringing any­one into this trouble just let me say in self defence what I stated at the Q. meeting, that is, that as I re­member when Bro. Eschrich told me about Bro. Hoefle, Bro. Jolly's name was not mentioned, and for Sister Hoefle to act as she did was a breach of con­fidence as I see it. I still love them both and will do again as I have done before, that is, defend my brother's name when circumstances require it. I feel that our trip to Fla. was a failure on account of what happened at that Q. meeting.

Many of you I have known for Many years and as age is creeping up it is not likely that I shall ever be in Fla. again so I ask of you to think of me not as one that has lifted the heel against his Bro. but one who is still in the flesh and makes mistakes and never ceases to pray for others who make mistakes.

Your Bro. by His Grace,

(Signed)

Daniel Gavin

P. S. As far as I am concerned this matter is closed so no answer to this letter is required.

Recently in Winter Park I saw your letter of March 30, in which you say “it was agreed that anything that night be said about certain things and per­sons was to be confident­ial” while you were in Mount Dora Feb. 27 to March 16.

This is indeed a surprise – quite a surprise – as no one at the Mount Dora residence remem­bers the word “confidence” being even mentioned. You in­sist again that “Bro. Jolly's name was not mentioned when Bro. Eschrich told you about Bro. Hoefle.” So far as I can see, that is the one and only item of contention – Did you bring Brother Jolly's name into the Eschrich conversations or didn't you? If you did not – as you contend – then how could your confidence possibly be betrayed when, as you claim, you never gave that confidence to me? Will you please make yourself clear on this?

As you well know, I was aware of the slanderous gossip being circulated about me long before you came to me about it in Detroit last fall. You added same details, of course, chief of which was that Brother Jolly had passed it to Brother Eschrich, the latter in turn passing it on to you. Had you pledged me to secrecy in this, just what good could it do me to know it? And what is your understanding of your Scriptural and civic obligation in such matters? Surely you must know that if you have knowledge of a murder in your neighborhood the State of Massachusetts would charge you as an accessory to the crime if you re­fused to tell what you know about it. And the Lord also would account you a partaker of their sins should you not expose such evildoers to the one being wronged. And the Lord would hold me guilty, too, should I agree with you to pro­tect by secrecy such sinners in His House. All of this seems so elemental that I find myself constantly asking myself what you have taught yourself in the many years you have been attempting to teach others in the Truth! Seemingly, your understanding of “faithfulness to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren” means to you an obligation to shield the wrongdoers and berate the one wronged. And such a course could produce for you only what it has – Torment of heart and mind. “What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

“Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in His Holy Place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, and who hath not sworn deceitfully”. Quite clearly, one of us has “sworn deceitfully”; and you know full well who that one is, Brother Gavin – and so do I! And so do all the members of the house at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora. And, what is so very much more important, the Lord knows who it is, too! “The hoary head is a crown of glory if it be found in the way of righteous­ness”; but it is a double reproach if it be found in the way of deceit and spine­less juggling.

Please understand, my Brother, that writing you such a letter as this is contrary to all my finer senses. You well recall that I came to you privately “in the spirit of meekness” last fall at Mount Dora to tell you of your erron­eous teaching about the laver in the Tabernacle court, because I had no wish to embarrass you – just as I would want you to treat me under similar circum­stances. A proper recovery of you from the error of your way is much, much more important to me than offering you public humiliation. But the leprosy in this controversy is much deeper than you seem to realize (some of this will become apparent to you when you learn what Brother Jolly said at Winter Park the day after you left). And, while you seem ready enough to “consider this matter closed”, I cannot, and will not, jeopardize my own standing in the Lord's House by giving it such a spineless dismissal. It is your Scriptural obligation – and I now call upon you to meet it – to either admit or defeat the salient statements I have made herein.

In view of the correspondence which has been furnished to this Ecclesia, namely:

Copy of Brother Jolly's letter of March 24, to you, marked “For the information of the Winter Park Ecclesia”,

Brother Gavin's letter of March 30, addressed to the Ecclesia at Winter Park, Florida, and

Copy of your letter to Brother Jolly dated April l, together with the May P. T., we recognize that our Scriptural obligation in this matter is to give you the facts as we know them, during Brother Jolly's visit to Winter Park, March 15 and 16.

During the Question Meeting, referred to by Brother Jolly in his letter to you, Sr. Hoefle asked Brother Jolly if Brother Eschrich had told him what happened at the Jacksonville Convention. Brother Jolly replied “No”, further stating that Brother Eschrich had not told him anything.

Sr. Hoefle then explained that she was referring to what had happened in Jacksonville between Brother Eschrich and Brother Hoefle, and asked Brother Jolly if ANYONE had discussed it with him, to which he again replied “No”, that he had not been informed.

The morning of March 17, as we were having breakfast in the Bus Station in Orlando with Brother Jolly, during the course of our conversation he men­tioned the “bad spirit” which was shown at Jacksonville Convention, stating that “someone had shaken their finger in Brother Eschrich's face” and that Brother Eschrich told him that the spirit shown there was so bad that he, Bro. Eschrich, thought it best to open the meeting right away and put an end to it.

You will observe that this is in direct contradiction to Brother Jolly's letter of March 24 to you, wherein he stated:

“The charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson, of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.”

Also, it is in direct contradiction to his statements before the Winter Park Ecclesia during the Question Meeting.

He did say, in the presence of several of us, after Sr. Hoefle had left, that he thought she showed a very bad spirit, but he offered no reproval to her personally, neither during the meeting nor after­wards, except that, in clos­ing the meeting he did make the statement that some of the questions “were officious.”

Brother Jolly further stated in his letter to you:

“I am not clear as to just what the charge was against Brother Gavin.”

The Winter Park Ecclesia clearly under­stood that Sr. Hoefle by her ques­tion to Brother Gavin, plainly revealed what the complaint was, namely, that Brother Gavin had not given the same story to the Winter Park Ecclesia that he had previously given to Brother Hoefle in Detroit, and again at the Jacksonville Convention.

Brother Gavin denied before the Ecclesia, that he had said Brother Esch­rich told him that Brother Jolly gave him this report.

In our private discussion with Brother Jolly the morning of his departure, we frankly told him that a number of things had been said to us by certain breth­ren, over two years ago, whereby we were led to believe that he, Brother Jolly, had privately discussed with them, or warned, against Brother Hoefle, although the brethren did not intend to betray any confidences and did not specifically mention names. Brother Jolly denied that he had ever given any confidential in­formation or warning concerning Brother Hoefle, to any of the brethren.

He stated to us that you were out of harmony with Brother Russell and Bro. John­son on a doctrinal point, over which he had considerable correspondence with you, but that you still retained your view in opposi­tion to Brother Russell and Brother Johnson.

Sr. Stanford said that if we knew for a certainty that Brother Hoefle, or any other brother, was not in harmony with the doctrinal teachings of Bro. Russell and Brother Johnson, we would not allow him to give a talk in our home, to which Brother Jolly emphatically stated: “It is not a fundamental doctrine, Sister.”

We feel no malice toward any of the breth­ren, and have had no “personal differ­ences” with any of them. This letter is not written because of preju­dice nor partisanship, but plainly as a fulfillment of our duty, not only to you, but others as well. Therefore, you may use it in the interest of Truth and Justice, as you find need for it.

Assuring you of our prayers for you, and our continued Christian love,

Thanks so much for your good letter of May 20. It is indeed a "cup of cold water’ to have brethren of their own volition take their stand for Truth and Righteousness (Mark 9:41) – “And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” (I Pet. 3:13) “Blessed are your eyes, for they see.”

If I am correctly informed, then it would seem Brother Jolly is once more guilty of unscrupulous falsehood. Such a condition is indeed tragic in one claiming to be leader of the “cleansed” Levites; his acts certainly belie his claims. I had hoped time might be helping him to free himself from the clutches of Azazel, the Father of Lies (John 8:44 ‑Dia.); but it would seem that only extreme Fit‑Man experiences will accomplish this for him. Let us pray for him that it may be speedily accomplished, and that he may soon rightly keep that Trust which has been committed unto him – keeping ever in mind for yourselves that there is no obligation on the part of upright and faithful Youthful Worth­ies to become a partaker of those Fit‑Man experiences.

Brother Jolly's refusal to answer my letter of April 1 because of mine of May 22, 1954 is the clumsiest of sophistry. You yourselves were at Jacksonville on February 26 when he publicly asked me to support him in prayer. That was nine months after May 22, 1954; and his letter of March 24, 1955 was ten months later. At every turn he shows a shameful lack of self‑respect and a pathetic inadequacy for the position he is attempting to fill – just as did King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16‑21), who attempted to profane the house of the Lord and was stricken with leprosy in his forehead, a condition which Uzziah could not see himself, but which was so plainly visible to others. Uzziah there portrayed those in the Gospel Age who are diseased in their thinking on spiritual matters.

King Saul also typed the Great Com­pany leaders from about 200 AD up to Arma­ged­don; and his three outstanding sins were Envy, Stubbornness and Rebellion (Revol­u­tionism) “which is the sin of witchcraft” (especially deceptive false teachings). If “all men forsake us, and none stand with us” (2 Tim‑ 4:16), we too may “pray God that it may not be laid to their charge”, as we repose in the promise that “no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper”. In the final analysis, slanderers never do their targets any real harm, I am fully persuaded that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson do not even have the smell of slander on their garments where they now are; and I am equally persuaded that their “dear Great Company brethren”, who “cast them out for My name's sake” with much vilify­ing, are still wallowing in their leprosy, just as Uzziah was “a leper unto the day of his death”. What a tragic ending for one with such blessed and unusual opportunities; and what a warning it should be to all not to follow his disastrous course!!!

Under Brother Johnson's leadership we had no far‑reaching experiences with such evils in the Great Company as we are undergoing now. This was due to the restraining hand of the last Star Member being upon those of them in our group. But, even though we do not have the unpublished works of Brother Johnson in our possession, the Lord has not left the Faithful in darkness concerning the “Times and Seasons”; we have sufficient in Brother Johnson's published literature to en­able us to “have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness” and to “re­prove them” accordingly. Note March 1, l949 P.T., pages 42‑43: “As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient”, etc. (See preceding paragraphs for description of the two forms of the rods.) You will also note in E‑4, page 210, the steps taken by the Lord for the recovery of these Levites –­ the final step being the withdrawal of all favor and brotherly help.

You yourselves were present at the Jacksonville Convention and heard Brother Jolly say that he knew of no time Brother Johnson ever withdrew brotherly help from him; and that statement by him there was indeed the truth (although he made a direct contradiction of it at Muskegon). Also, it is self‑evident that he did not withdraw brotherly help from the unmanifested Crown­losers, when he did not even withdraw Priestly fellowship from them during his lifetime. So the Lord Himself did this to them when He removed Brother Johnson October 22, 1950, at which time the last group of the Great Company (those in the LHMM) was completely abandoned to Azazel through the withdrawal of all brother­ly help of the last Priest.

In attempting to answer a question on this subject at the Muskegon Convention, Brother Jolly did a very disgraceful juggling act – while yelling loudly at the same meeting that he is “in full harmony with dear Brother Johnson”! Truly, “a doubleminded man (Great Company) is unstable in all his ways”! He does not seem to remember his statements from one day to the next, so he repeatedly contradicts himself, thus proving himself to be a very unreliable teacher and untrustworthy leader.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” – Proverbs 14:12. If the Great Com­pany – especially their lead­ers – do not speedily forsake their evil “way”, their end must be death, the Second Death. We hope and pray that they will soon come to recognize their ap­palling and precarious condition and seek to extricate themselves from Azazel's hands by an honest “love of Truth” (2 Thes. 2:10, 11 ‑ Dia.) We shall rejoice to see this accomplished in them. Their continued frustra­tions and failures are a clear evidence that they do not yet “offer unto the Lord an offering in right­eousness”. “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident” – Prov. 14:16. The recently‑devised “Attestatorial” drive will be a failure, too so long as “Sin lieth at the door“. It is indeed shameful how the poor sheep are being deceived, but we may rest in the calm assurance that “God is not mocked”, and that there must surely come “a certain looking to of judgment and fiery indignation”. “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.”

The words of Brother Johnson with reference to Judge Rutherford and others could well apply to Brother Jolly: “Let us pause before discussing his Pyramid delusions and see what he has done with our Pastor's literature, the steward­ship of which he and the rest of the Board and Tower Editors received on condi­tion of faithfully administering it, through which he and they received the special powers, prerogatives and privileges of leadership in the Society, in which he and they have been most unfaithful, and from which they should resign as unfaithful stewards, unworthy of the further benefits coming from a grossly misused steward­ship.” (E‑6, page 391, Par. 1)

Brother Jolly has been most unfaithful to the Lord's people in wilfully with­holding from them the unpublished literature that rightfully belongs to them, and which is in no way his personal property. He has most certainly betrayed his “Trust” with respect to the unpublished literature; and, when he says “The brethren are not prepared for the books – I could ask them a dozen questions on what they have that they could not answer”, he is displaying a brand of impudence well in keeping with the jugglery of That Evil Servant. On Pages 10, 11, 12 of Jan 1. 1950 P. T. Brother Johnson, the Star Member who wrote those books, said he thought the brethren were prepared for them and would make them available forthwith. That was five years ago; and, if the brethren were prepared for them then, they are most certainly more prepared for them now. In fact, they are probably too well prepared for them, because those writings undoubtedly contain information which would put a direct contradiction on much Brother Jolly has been doing – as, for instance, Brother Johnson being in harmony with Brother Russell on Rev. 19:1‑6 (See Berean Comments on this and Rev. 22:10). But again I repeat – “God will not long be mocked” by this unfaithful “Trustee”! In spite of the foregoing clear statement by Brother Johnson in 1950, you will undoubtedly recall how Brother Jolly brazen­ly declared at the Jacksonville Conven­tion that Brother Johnson said he would not complete the publication of his books until after Armageddon (but he failed to qualify that statement by saying Brother Johnson said that back in 1940!)

Very much more could be said about the “leprosy in the Camp”; but I shall conclude with the assurance to you both that I pray our Good Shepherd may re­ward you according to your good inten­tions, and grant you that Peace of Mind which passeth understandings.